Iraq protests

Socrates99

Bottoms up!
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
2,408
Location
Michigan
So the US is sending "hundreds" of new troops to Iraq in response to protests at the American embassy in Iraq. Pompeo is blaming Iran for the protests. Unfortunately as soon as Pompeo's face appears on screen my bullfeathers meter buries itself in the red even more than when Trump is on screen. I consider Trump an inept fool. Pompeo on the other hand seems to yearn for blood on his hands.

What's going on in Iraq? Will it lead to war?
 

Berzerker

Deity
Joined
Dec 30, 2000
Messages
21,785
Location
the golf course
I doubt it, but hopefully it will expedite getting the hell out of dodge. The Iraqis dont want us hanging around but we dont want to leave the oil fields in NE Syria. At some point we'll have to let Syria reclaim their oil in spite of their alliance with Iran.
 

Socrates99

Bottoms up!
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
2,408
Location
Michigan
Hoping you're right. Trump seems to constantly struggle with factions in his party. Pompeo blames Iran for these protests and the troops are being moved there on that context. Since these reports have popped up I've been wondering how legit they are, how connected to Iran they really are and how far it's going to get pushed. I wish I could to trust trump to stick to his word at bare minimum but I don't.
 

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
47,279
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
It's an interesting conundrum whether to protect your own embassy or just pull it out. If an embassy was a (net) stabilizing presence, despite the local disruptions, that would be hard to figure out.
 

innonimatu

the resident Cassandra
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
14,478
From what I've heard, we have asked the Iraqi government to provide additional security for our embassy and they have not done so, either because they don't want to or just don't have the resources to.

So as much as I hate the idea of getting sucked back into that quagmire, if the host nation can't provide the security we require for our embassy, then we have to do it ourselves. Embassies are considered sovereign US territory after all and they are staffed by US citizens, both of which the government has an obligation to defend.

Actually this is a common misconception. The territory of embassies always remains part of the sovereign territory of the receiving (host) country. The receiving country has duties under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention, indeed it must provide security to the diplomatic mission. It is also forbidden from sending its agents to the embassy without permission. But this does not mean that the territory becomes the sovereign territory of another country. If that were true the mission could not be expelled by the host country, which is not the case.

This also means that the laws of the host country apply in the embassy's territory and the host country can prosecute people for crimes within the embassy if they can capture them and these people do not enjoy immunity.

Some very few embassies (or other bits of territory) in the world were indeed ceded as sovereign territory to another state, in bilateral treaties the two states involved, centuries ago usually. That is an extremely rare situation and afaik was the case in Iraq.

This case in Iraq the unwillingness of the iraqi government to protect the US embassy seems to result from the crass way in which the US bombed iraqi forces, killing at least 40 iraqui soldiers, on so far unsubstantiated allegations that they had attacked a base where american mercenaries and some soldiers were stationed. PR wise this was as foolish as could be done, and made the iraqi soldiers themselves unwilling to protect the US embassy. It didn't help that the iraqi PM was only notified of this bombing immediately before it happened, and disregard when he attempted to block it.

Iraqis had been protesting their government and attacking iranian consulates. Now they are attacking the US embassy. Genius move, Pompeo et al!
 

Estebonrober

Deity
Joined
Jan 9, 2017
Messages
5,404
Actually this is a common misconception. The territory of embassies always remains part of the sovereign territory of the receiving (host) country. The receiving country has duties under Article 22 of the Vienna Convention, indeed it must provide security to the diplomatic mission. It is also forbidden from sending its agents to the embassy without permission. But this does not mean that the territory becomes the sovereign territory of another country. If that were true the mission could not be expelled by the host country, which is not the case.

This also means that the laws of the host country apply in the embassy's territory and the host country can prosecute people for crimes within the embassy if they can capture them and these people do not enjoy immunity.

Some very few embassies (or other bits of territory) in the world were indeed ceded as sovereign territory to another state, in bilateral treaties the two states involved, centuries ago usually. That is an extremely rare situation and afaik was the case in Iraq.

This case in Iraq the unwillingness of the iraqi government to protect the US embassy seems to result from the crass way in which the US bombed iraqi forces, killing at least 40 iraqui soldiers, on so far unsubstantiated allegations that they had attacked a base where american mercenaries and some soldiers were stationed. PR wise this was as foolish as could be done, and made the iraqi soldiers themselves unwilling to protect the US embassy. It didn't help that the iraqi PM was only notified of this bombing immediately before it happened, and disregard when he attempted to block it.

Iraqis had been protesting their government and attacking iranian consulates. Now they are attacking the US embassy. Genius move, Pompeo et al!

wow something I actually agree with you on! see this happens sometimes lol
 

schlaufuchs

La Femme Moderne
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
16,132
Location
Chicago, IL
Considering:

a) These protests have been ongoing for well over a month at this point

and

b) the US State Department's proclivity for launching false flags, or else performing the standard rhetoric which a false flag usually entails (without doing the actual legwork)

it seems highly unlikely that this is some kind of Iranian false flag op. And even if it were the case this were an Iranian op, would that impinge upon the extremely legitimate complaints upon which these (even allegedly "illegitimate") protests rest?
 

Lexicus

Deity
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
27,562
Location
Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
This case in Iraq the unwillingness of the iraqi government to protect the US embassy seems to result from the crass way in which the US bombed iraqi forces, killing at least 40 iraqui soldiers, on so far unsubstantiated allegations that they had attacked a base where american mercenaries and some soldiers were stationed. PR wise this was as foolish as could be done, and made the iraqi soldiers themselves unwilling to protect the US embassy. It didn't help that the iraqi PM was only notified of this bombing immediately before it happened, and disregard when he attempted to block it.

Iraqis had been protesting their government and attacking iranian consulates. Now they are attacking the US embassy. Genius move, Pompeo et al!

Bear in mind that this is the administration you keep implying is our great bulwark against the evil imperialists like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,483
where american mercenaries

Mercenaries being employed by any government party to a set of binding set of treaties on wartime conduct - of which the U.S. is a signatory - are an international crime to employ on a battlefield, or to hold such an occupation. A casus belli to defend the death of a band of criminals whose presence there, and whose employment was an international war crime, compounds the war crimes being committed. The U.S. Pentagon generals involved should be sent to the Hague, not the bombing of Iraqi troops.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,483
cuz destroying Iraq, Libya and Syria are comparable

Bush lit the wick on the large powder keg that destroyed Iraq. Gadaffi and Assad set up situations that led to their nations' disintegrations with or without American assistance. And, things get much more complex under the surface as well. The situations in these three nations were decades in the making, and juxtaposed at several junctures. But for so many, blame games (like a lot of other issues) have to be oversimplified, and always be the sole fault of one AMERICAN President or another in their entirety. You fail! Try again next semester.
 

Ajidica

High Quality Person
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
21,668
Things just escalated big time:
BBC said:
Qasem Soleimani: US kills Iran Quds force leader, Pentagon confirms

General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' elite Quds Force, has been killed by US forces in Iraq.

The Pentagon confirmed he was killed "at the direction of the president".

It comes after reports of a strike at Baghdad's international airport, which is said to have killed a number of people.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards also confirmed Gen Soleimani was dead, blaming an attack by US helicopters.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463

Also, how the actual [censored] can we not be at war with Iran when the President orders uniformed US forces to kill a serving member of the Iranian military in a military action?
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,483
Things just escalated big time:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50979463

Also, how the actual [censored] can we not be at war with Iran when the President orders uniformed US forces to kill a serving member of the Iranian military in a military action?
Holy crap that's bad.

I was wondering how long Trump, despite all of his corruption, lies, and abuse of power, would go without also becoming a war criminal like EVERY U.S. President before him since WW2. Why don't you Americans just stop voting for high criminals to blatantly and overtly govern you, commit their crimes on your taxpayers' dime, many even actually against you, and mock you at how they get away with their vile crimes, and you don't?
 

hobbsyoyo

Deity
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
26,576
Apparently, not only was Qasem very highly ranked, he's also a household name and extremely popular in Iran. And our President just ordered his assassination inside one of our allied nations, at an airport. I assume this means we are now at war with Iran. That is how any reasonable country would be expected to act in this situation. Yet Trump doesn't believe in military adventures...
 

hobbsyoyo

Deity
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
26,576
Half of his supporters will not know this ever happened. Fox is covering it now as it's breaking news but I expect them to suppress the story to the greatest extent they can. The other half will say it's totally justified based on whatever Trump says about it.

If this does devolve into a general war, Fox will focus on allegations that Iran provoked this above all other narratives. They will in fact suppress any counter narratives and inconvenient facts.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,483
Apparently, not only was Qasem very highly ranked, he's also a household name and extremely popular in Iran. And our President just ordered his assassination inside one of our allied nations, at an airport. I assume this means we are now at war with Iran. That is how any reasonable country would be expected to act in this situation. Yet Trump doesn't believe in military adventures...

Just waiting for all the people who claimed Trump would be less of a warmonger than Clinton and Obama to explain how this is actually okay

I'm still kind of wondering the answer to this question I asked here.

Why don't you Americans just stop voting for high criminals to blatantly and overtly govern you, commit their crimes on your taxpayers' dime, many even actually against you, and mock you at how they get away with their vile crimes, and you don't?
 

Birdjaguar

Hanafubuki
Super Moderator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 24, 2001
Messages
48,351
Location
Albuquerque, NM
General Qasem Soleimani was a terrible guy. A terrorist and all around bad dude. He will not be missed. but, killing him is not the action of someone looking to solve problems. I fear the retaliation will be deadly. I hope our embassies around the world were given a heads up and are prepared.
 

MagisterCultuum

Great Sage
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
16,459
Location
Kael's head
Just waiting for all the people who claimed Trump would be less of a warmonger than Clinton and Obama to explain how this is actually okay
I never expected him to be less of a warmonger in general, only less of a war monger against other Nuclear powers like Russia and North Korea. It does not surprise me that he would be belligerent towards a country that only wants nuclear power plants and has often reiterated that Islamic law can never under any circumstances allow the use, stockpiling or construction of even any nuclear weapons.
 
Top Bottom